RE: Is theft becoming impossible?

From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Thu Sep 04 2003 - 20:19:43 MDT

  • Next message: Emlyn O'regan: "RE: Who'd submit to the benevolent dictatorship of GAI anyway?"

    --- Emlyn O'regan <oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au>
    wrote:
    > Adrian Tymes wrote:
    > > Also, consider that most criminals give no thought
    > to
    > > what happens if they're caught. In the same
    > defiance
    > > of rational thought that leads them to believe
    > crime
    > > pays in the long run, they usually simply believe
    > they
    > > won't be caught. (There are exceptions, of
    > course,
    > > and for some criminals - usually the ones who
    > think
    > > clearly enough about this that they do not, in
    > fact,
    > > get caught - crime does pay. But that's a small
    > > fraction of the cases, since most people who think
    > > that clearly tend to find far more profitable uses
    > for
    > > their time.)
    >
    > Are you sure that's a small fraction of the cases?
    > People always say that
    > criminals are dumb, but I think the sample might be
    > skewed by only being
    > able to measure those who are caught. So much
    > property is stolen, for
    > instance, and never returned, so that it seems to me
    > that most theft is
    > actually completely successful.

    The only reliable source of the numbers is law
    enforcement officials themselves - and one could
    easily suspect that data of being forged, deliberately
    or not, towards lower-IQ criminals.

    That said, there is a theoretical reason why criminals
    are, on the average, not that bright. In most
    societies, the majority of laws are made for the
    benefit of the governed, and more importantly
    represent behavior that certain people find
    objectionable. People can and do increase their own
    wealth (or whatever they find valuable, such as
    spiritual enlightenment, but even that requires at
    least some resources to keep body and soul together)
    by a wide variety of means, but some methods are more
    likely to get said wealth taken away afterwards than
    others. It is little coincidence that the greatest
    sources of wealth happen to be those that bring at
    least small measures of wealth to just about everyone
    else. For instance, no matter what one may think of
    CEOs of large corporations, the fact remains that said
    corporations are providing something of value to
    people, else they would have no customers and would
    not be large. (Which is not to say that some of said
    figures do not also turn to criminal activities to
    boost their revenues. But the ones that do are
    newsworthy because they are exceptions: less than 10%
    of all corporate executives in the US were indicted on
    insider trading or the like so far this year, probably
    far less. Source for that: NYSE lists 3008
    US-headquartered corporations at this time. There is
    at least one CxO per company - probably far more, but
    we can prove without research that there is at least
    one. Further, there are several corporations not on
    the NYSE; NASDAQ has at least 100. But the SEC has
    only launched 309 administrative actions so far this
    year. 309 < (3008 + 100) * .1)



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 04 2003 - 20:30:26 MDT